I am intrigued by your ideas (I respect them even though I disagree with them), but I am alarmed at how many of the opposing views here seem to be squelched even if they are written decently and posted in the proper forum. I guess I do not find it surprising that any and all who disagree with you here garner troll suspicion, but from the looks of it, all I would have to do is put together any decently structured "opposing" thought before I am lambasted with a bunch of ( :stupid , etc), yelled at to search better, and my account deleted.

Would I be wasting my time asking potenially opposing questions or voicing opposing views, even though you have a forum for it?

Would I be wasting my time asking potenially opposing questions or voicing opposing views, even though you have a forum for it?

16

Not at all. We do welcome serious debate. You have to realise that most of the people screaming "Ooohhh my posts are censored because SF are afraid of me!" are in reality just posting obscene and mindless crap. We're not afraid of anyone, but we're not going to let SF be turned into a cesspit. If you have some worthwhile stuff to say, go for it.

I disagree. Yesterday I composed a perfectly legitimate post, showing historical evidence and a broad ideological challenge to your beliefs, without using obscenities, poor spelling and grammar or anything else of that sort. For some reason it was not accepted. Must I be registered to post, or is the guest feature activated because we can use it? Anyway, I want to know why my post was rejected.

There are currently two posts in opposing views which I have even responded to in which the person was very polite. "thought before I am lambasted with a bunch of" Nobody "lambasted" them. Read a little bit and you will see... The politer the oppose view is put. The nicer we are.

There are currently two posts in opposing views which I have even responded to in which the person was very polite. "thought before I am lambasted with a bunch of" Nobody "lambasted" them. Read a little bit and you will see... The politer the oppose view is put. The nicer we are.

If I am correctly interpreting your post, you are saying an old psychological tactic is being employed by our enemies in the opposing views forum. They are trying to awe us with their kindness in the hope we will compromise our convictions so as not to appear mean-spirited.

If so, I've noticed this too. I won't be swayed, however. Just because a homo, for example, appears to be a nice person doesn't make their abnormal conduct the least bit more acceptable to me.

I don't often reply to anti posts in the opposing views forum due to their redundancy. No matter how much sense we make, they continue to ask the same questions, and whine about how they just don't understand why we are so hateful in this wonderful age of enlightenment.

Most antis aren't worth the time it takes to reply with a rational explanation.

I am intrigued by your ideas (I respect them even though I disagree with them), but I am alarmed at how many of the opposing views here seem to be squelched even if they are written decently and posted in the proper forum.

Try starting a straight forward debate in a non racist forum and you will find yourself banned, censored, and slapped silly in no time. Don't accuse us of intolerance when it comes to freedom of speech, because it's rare.

People also forget that this is a white nationalist forum, which basicly means that the people posting here have in common that they prefer living in a 100% white nation. People rarely debate this because no sane white person likes walking through a black neighbourhood.

Instead people attack the neo-nazis, skinheads, ******-haters, homophobes, jew-haters and all the other colorful personalities that frequent this board over and over again. I hope you can imagine what a tiring process this is for the moderators that have to authorize these messages to avoid this board from being flooded with spam.

Hi Researcher,
My impression is that they allow all sorts of opposing views as long as the posters obey the guidelines (i.e. behave in civilized fashion). I wouldn't know what gets rejected, but it seems that of the stuff that gets posted, the behavior that most commonly gets squashed is: repeatedly re-posting the same stuff without answering questions about it.
In other words, once you post an 'opposing view', you ought to participate in whatever 'debate' it gives rise to.
Common courtecy, really.

Ive noticed a lot of times people will make an accusation towards us, we answer, and then they repeat the accusation. We again answer, and they repeat again, and again, and again. Its tough enough to have to deal with this in everyday life, Stormfront is one small place where its not semper idem, ad infinitum.

Well, the opposing views can be that way, you just dont have to hear it from the same person.

Ive noticed a lot of times people will make an accusation towards us, we answer, and then they repeat the accusation. We again answer, and they repeat again, and again, and again. Its tough enough to have to deal with this in everyday life, Stormfront is one small place where its not semper idem, ad infinitum.

That, IMHO, constitutes spamming.

Suppose an anti posts: "You Nazis hate women." And a dozen people waste time replying that no, this isn't true... and a week later the anti tries to repost the same troll again, without ansdwering the people he trolled the first time. I think the mods would be fully justified in banning the troll.

Location: Night sits measuring shadows here, Deep and stark, Where the hills are dark, With evergreen haunts for the hungry deer, So that strangers understand, Winter's claim upon the land – Ellin Anderson

Posts: 11,641

Re: Do you really allow opposing views here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ResearcherE

I am intrigued by your ideas (I respect them even though I disagree with them), but I am alarmed at how many of the opposing views here seem to be squelched even if they are written decently and posted in the proper forum.

How do we compare to the mass media? How often do you hear mainstream white leaders like David Duke, Jared Taylor, or Kevin Strom voice their views on multiculturalism compared to those who support multiculturalism?

I would say for every one hour on TV spent promoting multiculturalism and denouncing what you would call racism, you have .000000000001 of an hour offered to our leaders and spokesmen in support of the right of whites to live separately and to govern ourselves.